Dedar Singh Gill shares views on Singapore's IP hub master plan

05 Apr 2013

World Trademark Review
by Seher Hussain

Based on the recommendations of an IP Steering Committee, Singapore has officially unveiled its 10-year master plan to develop the city-state into a global IP hub. However the report has meagre detail on trademark-related initiatives. Is this a case of the IP Steering Committee overlooking trademarks or is the Singapore system mature enough to not necessitate further improvement?

Comprising 14 initiatives, the plan focuses on ensuring that Singapore becomes a hub for IP transactions and management, quality IP filings and IP dispute resolution. According to the report, these goals will be achieved through instituting an IP patent-related financing programme, an investment of S$50 million into patent search and examination capabilities and establishing a specialised docket system for IP cases, amongst others.

However the absence of trademark-focused targets is notable. It is not the first IP strategy to seemingly neglect trademarks and, even, as WTR reported earlier, former USPTO director David Kappos’ tenure was focused on patents, singling out trademarks as “the little engine that can and does”.

Sheena Jacob, head of the Intellectual Property & Technology practice at ATMD Bird & Bird, told WTR that the strategy’s focus is not unexpected: “At the end of the day, this master plan is tied to a knowledge-based economy. Much of that growth in terms of innovation is going to come in the form of patentable inventions.”

Dedar Singh Gill, managing director of intellectual property at Drew & Napier, agrees: “The report correctly focuses on patents instead of trademarks. This is the primary area that requires development in order to achieve Singapore’s objective of becoming an IP Hub.”

Jacob adds that patent law was only enacted in 1994, which makes it relatively new as opposed to the trademark regime, which is considerably more mature.

The link between patents and innovation is certainly easier to trace than between trademarks and innovation, as WTR has previously reported. In lieu of specific initiatives, however, there are several aspects of the Singaporean report that are broadly applicable to the trademark industry. For example, Jacob notes that “the proposed specialised docket will cut across all forms of IP, whether it's patents, trademarks or copyright.”

Another trademark-focused area would be the recommended tax incentives, which cover acquisitions and registrations. Jacob explains that this “will include brand acquisitions and the development of global brands from Singapore. It will be one of the areas that does have a big impact on trademarks and local and regional brands”.

On the tax side, the report outlines the need to ensure Singapore offers a favourable environment for IP portfolio functions, such as licensing activities. Noting the existence of an IP Box regime, “which provides for a reduced effective tax rate on qualifying income from IP, including patents, trademarks and copyrights” in a number of countries, it argues: “We need to make our IP-related tax system a more competitive one.” To achieve this, it proposes the implementation of an IP Box or similar tax regime, and that the government adopts such a scheme even for IP not created in Singapore (where IP owners have substantive management and decision-making functions anchored in Singapore).

Trademark practitioners are clearly positive about the current state of affairs, however WTR will be keeping a close eye on developments in Singapore in the months to come.

This article has been reproduced with permission from the author Seher Hussain, Singapore - Singapore unveils IP hub plan; scant on trademark initiativesWorld Trademark Review.